Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 295 posts

Re: Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

#101

Post by falcolas »

notyourwork wrote: post #97
falcolas wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is at-will. And it still requires 60 days notice for a mass-layoff, thorough a separate act, because it's a special case that's covered by a separate law. > “an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order” https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Cal-WARNAct.html

Without sounding dumb, this is saying that a company has to tell you 60 days ahead of time that in 60 days they will fire you? edit: Thank you for the clarification, appreciate the added insights.

Pretty much, yes. It's an employee friendly policy, which is certainly not the norm. But given how long tech interviews can take, it's a good policy for tech employees.

Note, I don't benefit from this since I'm not in CA, but I still think it's a good idea.

Re: Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

#102

Post by Macha »

notyourwork wrote: post #97
falcolas wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is at-will. And it still requires 60 days notice for a mass-layoff, thorough a separate act, because it's a special case that's covered by a separate law. > “an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order” https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Cal-WARNAct.html

Without sounding dumb, this is saying that a company has to tell you 60 days ahead of time that in 60 days they will fire you? edit: Thank you for the clarification, appreciate the added insights.

Yes. They don't have to let you into the building, let you access their systems, etc., but they need to fulfil their contractual obligations in terms of pay and benefits for 60 days.

(EU laws apply more broadly, but the California one is only in the event of mass layoffs)

Re: Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

#103

Post by nomel »

e40 wrote: post #76
nomel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he didn't consult a proper lawyer Do you have any evidence for this?

I run an HR department, albeit not for one as large as twitter. I have done layoffs. I always consulted a lawyer and it never triggered lawsuits. There are layoffs all the time at large companies that don't trigger lawsuits. Either he consulted a terrible lawyer or none at all.

The existence of a lawsuit can't be used to judge the legality of the layoffs. Only the ruling can. It's possible (although a bit more unlikely) that the person filing the lawsuit is a terrible lawyer.

Making factual statements/judgements seems misguided, at this point, in my IANAL opinion.

Re: Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

#104

Post by pwinnski »

spoils19 wrote: post #75
rtkwe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person suing got their termination notification on 11/1 so I imaging they know more about what their termination actually entails than you or I do. Also Musk consistently pushes and oversteps the legal boundaries of what he can and can't do to get his way. Him being in charge of Twitter at all is because he was forced to execute a contract he willingly signed what makes you think he'll be more calmly compliant to…

pb7 is probably correct here, as they are in many things. Elon probably knows what he's doing, you don't get to that level of businessmen without making all the right decisions.

This seems like a troll comment, given how disastrously Musk has handled the Twitter acquisition so far, and how many times he's been in trouble over mishandling things at Tesla and SpaceX.

Re: Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

#105

Post by lovich »

spoils19 wrote: post #75
rtkwe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person suing got their termination notification on 11/1 so I imaging they know more about what their termination actually entails than you or I do. Also Musk consistently pushes and oversteps the legal boundaries of what he can and can't do to get his way. Him being in charge of Twitter at all is because he was forced to execute a contract he willingly signed what makes you think he'll be more calmly compliant to…

pb7 is probably correct here, as they are in many things. Elon probably knows what he's doing, you don't get to that level of businessmen without making all the right decisions.

That is a dangerous Calvinist line of thinking. If someone lies/steals/cheats their way to the top, you’d never notice because you are ascribing virtue to the person solely by their success

Re: Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

#106

Post by _jal »

illuminerdy wrote: post #41
erehweb wrote: post #21

Lots of people saying "Why is this lawsuit needed? Musk / Twitter HR would obviously comply with the law". Bear in mind that Musk has a history of not complying with legal obligations unless forced to (e.g. honoring the agreement to purchase Twitter).

> "Musk has a history of not complying with legal obligations unless forced to..." In that case, Musk sounds very much like every government, business, politician, friend, family member and neighbor I've ever known. In other words, that's how the world generally works.

> In that case, Musk sounds very much like every government, business, politician...

If you mean that in the sense that everyone, no matter how powerful, needs to be subject to oversight, I agree with you.

If instead you mean that in the schoolyard, "But Johnny was cussing too!" sense, well, if that's supposed to be a defense, it isn't. All I can suggest is be a smarter criminal.

Re: Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

#107

Post by [deleted] »

illuminerdy wrote: post #41
erehweb wrote: post #21

Lots of people saying "Why is this lawsuit needed? Musk / Twitter HR would obviously comply with the law". Bear in mind that Musk has a history of not complying with legal obligations unless forced to (e.g. honoring the agreement to purchase Twitter).

> "Musk has a history of not complying with legal obligations unless forced to..." In that case, Musk sounds very much like every government, business, politician, friend, family member and neighbor I've ever known. In other words, that's how the world generally works.

[deleted]

Re: Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

#109

Post by [deleted] »

notyourwork wrote: post #97
falcolas wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is at-will. And it still requires 60 days notice for a mass-layoff, thorough a separate act, because it's a special case that's covered by a separate law. > “an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order” https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Cal-WARNAct.html

Without sounding dumb, this is saying that a company has to tell you 60 days ahead of time that in 60 days they will fire you? edit: Thank you for the clarification, appreciate the added insights.

[deleted]

Re: Twitter faces a class action lawsuit over mass employee layoffs with proper

#110

Post by pwinnski »

notyourwork wrote: post #97
falcolas wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is at-will. And it still requires 60 days notice for a mass-layoff, thorough a separate act, because it's a special case that's covered by a separate law. > “an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order” https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Cal-WARNAct.html

Without sounding dumb, this is saying that a company has to tell you 60 days ahead of time that in 60 days they will fire you? edit: Thank you for the clarification, appreciate the added insights.

Instead of phrasing it that way, think of it has companies being required to give you 60 days notice, just like they want you to give them two weeks notice. Every time I've ever been at a company doing layoffs, they paid salaries (and benefits) for at least 60 days after the announcement, precisely because of laws like this.
Post reply on HN